Mst. HAJRAN vs SARDAR MUHAMMAD
This petition for leave to appeal arose from the High Court's dismissal of a Second Appeal from Order (S.A.O.) as time-barred. The petitioner sought condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908, pleading ignorance of the law of limitation. The core legal question was whether a litigant's personal ignorance of the law of limitation, in the absence of wrong legal advice, constitutes 'sufficient cause' for condoning delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908. The Supreme Court of Pakistan refused leave to appeal, holding that ignorance of the law does not constitute sufficient cause where the litigant acts without due diligence. The Court laid down the principle that while wrong advice by a lawyer may constitute sufficient cause in certain circumstances, a litigant who has no knowledge of the law of limitation does not act in good faith or with due diligence if they take it upon themselves to determine the time for filing an appeal in disregard of the prescribed statutory limits.
- Does a litigant's personal ignorance of the law of limitation constitute 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908?
- Can the involvement of valuable rights of a petitioner serve as a proper ground for condonation of delay in civil matters?
- Under what circumstances can wrong advice given by a lawyer constitute sufficient cause for condoning delay under the Limitation Act 1908?
- Section 5, Limitation Act 1908
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.-S. A. O. 356 of 1969 preferred by the petitioner in the High Court was barred by time. The explanation rendered was ignorance of the law of limitation which in the opinion of the learned Judge did not constitute a sufficient cause within section 5 of the Limitation Act. The appeal was, in this view, dismissed as barred by time.
2. The petitioner seeks leave to appeal on the same ground which did not find favour with the High Court. It was urged that valuable rights of the petitioner are involved, but this does not furnish a proper ground for condonation of delay in a civil matter. Reliance was placed on the view expressed by the High Court in Abdur Rehman's v. Custodian, Evacuee Property and others (PLD 1968 Lah. 1106) that "ignorance of law accompanied by circumstances not indicating want of good faith or negligence may in circum--stances of particular case furnish sufficient ground within meaning of section 5, Limitation Act, 1908" but is correct only to the extent that there is no negligence, no inaction and no want of good faith. A wrong advice given by a lawyer may, therefore, in a given case constitute sufficient cause, but a litigant who has no knowledge of the law of limitation does not act in good faith or with due diligence if he takes it upon himself to determine the time for filing a suit, an appear or application in disregard of the time prescribed by law. The S. A. O. Was, therefore, rightly dismissed as barred by time by the High Court.
3. Leave to appeal is refused.